Semi-justice at Guantanamo Bay

Published
4:00 am PDT, Monday, August 11, 2008

The Bush team got its wish: the first-ever conviction in a military court of a terrorist grabbed on the Afghan battlefield five years ago. But the result was a near wrist-slap sentence of five additional months in the Guantanamo brig.

The muddled ending gives both anti-terrorist hardliners and civil liberties critics a win. But it doesn't end doubts about the Pentagon's muscled-up legal process for trying suspects.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the White House devised get-tough rules for trying enemy combatants. Then a string of court cases, a Supreme Court ruling, and legal repair job by Congress produced a system that has now turned out its first verdict.

The debut figure was no al Qaeda mastermind or bombmaker. Instead it was a small-timer, a driver for Osama bin Laden, who was caught at a roadblock with two missiles in his vehicle. It was no show trial of a hard-bitten, crafty killer, only a subordinate taking orders.

The case ended up as a test of military commissions, designed to judge war crimes. After several false starts and redesigns, the resulting system in no way resembles everyday American justice. Secret testimony and closed proceedings are permitted. Also, the Pentagon can decide to keep the defendant, Salim Hamdan, beyond the end date of the sentence.

The five-month sentence is a modest triumph against these odds. The jury of six military officers apparently didn't buy arguments that Hamdan was a dangerous terrorist. The judge even developed a fondness of the defendant and wished him well in Arabic after the verdict. Prosecutors, who asked for a 30-year sentence, were clearly rebuked.

The results don't argue for junking terrorist trials. They argue for care, discretion and proportion, which seem to be foreign notions for this White House.

This country should go after terrorists. But save the heavy hitting for the real bad guys, the 9/11 planners and higher-ups. Move trials out of the hellhole of Guantanamo, a spot that will tarnish U.S. ideals for years. And give defendants rights that resemble those enjoyed in civilian court.

It may be too late to expect changes from this administration, but the next White House team should rethink a flawed process.